Talk Back

Eisworth · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: 1-2 On A.J. Ayer

Well, it's good to be back. It looks like lots of people were busy reading last year. Is there any evidence that Malabar is NOT in fact a self-aware scanner being marketed by Epson?

The first two books for the year are tied together:

1. Language, Truth, and Logic by A.J. Ayer, and

2. On Ayer by Robert M. Martin

The first of these two books is one of the most (in)famous works of Twentieth Century philosophy, while the second is a distilled biography cum explication of Ayer and his work. I read the second in parallel with the first because I became convinced at some point that I must be misunderstanding some of Ayer's arguments.

Anyway...

Ayer's thesis is summed up in the following quote:

jeffp · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:28 am Post subject:

Welcome back, Eisworth! Perhaps you can give malabar a run for the money this year? If so, the competition will be fun to watch.

In any case, I am happy to see you return this time around. Can you bring Super Milk Chan with you in the process?

shaw · Java Man Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 1025

What about the half-open case? A proposition whose falsity could be demonstrated but whose truth could not, or vice versa?

For example: "Doug hates ALL stories involving kittens."

You could never prove this true, because there are infinitely many potential stories involving kittens, but it COULD be proved false by a counter example.

malabar · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:16 am Post subject:

I'm not planning to be much competition this year, as I need to replace my toner - that is, I want to actually get some other things done.

Eisworth · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:21 am Post subject:

Give Malabar a run for her money? I was just going to suggest that maybe you guys should start a 270 in 07 board for her...

My goals this year are much more modest as far as numbers are concerned --- I'm hoping that numbers don't come into play at all!
_________________
Todd Eisworth
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Ohio University

Eisworth · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:30 am Post subject:

In reply to Doug:

As I understand things, Ayer's criterion is simply that SOME experience could POTENTIALLY render your statement more or less probable.
(The above is an over-simplification, as he wants to rule out the claim that "God exists" has meaning because one day he might show up and ask if we've been naughty or nice.)

The distinction between statements than can be verified but not refuted, and those that can be refuted, but not verified was quite relevant at the time when the book came out (1930s):

The Vienna Circle became known as "logical positivists" because they tended to believe that 'verifiability' is what gives a statement meaning, while Karl Popper took the opposite point of view and claimed that a statement has meaning only if it is possibly refutable.

[This pops up in things like psycho-analysis --- a lot of crackpot theories are verifiable in the sense that they provide predictions that are true, but they aren't really refutable. Popper wanted to call such things pseudo-science.]

Ayer hedges his bets -- all he requires is that empirical investigations can render the statement either more or less probable.
_________________
Todd Eisworth
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Ohio University

jeffp · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: